tv House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff on Foreign Policy CSPAN June 4, 2019 9:47pm-10:53pm EDT
change. in um the complete guide to congress is now available. it has lots of detail about the house and senate for the current session of congress, contact and bio about every senator and representative, class information about every congressional committee, state cabinet., and the the 2019 congressional directory guide.ndy viral bound order your copy from the c-span online store for $18.95. announcer: next, remarks by house intelligence committee chair adam schiff at the council on foreign relations. he talked about foreign policy, national security, the mueller report and ongoing threats from russia and china. this is just over one hour.
mr. feist: good morning, everybody. welcome to today's council on foreign relations meeting with schiff. adam i am sam feist, washington bureau chief and senior vice president and cnn -- at cnn. a reminder that today's meeting is on the record. representative shift has represented california's 10th district since 2001 which represents much of los angeles, hollywood and pasadena. he has served as chairman of the house permanent select committee intelligence. before joining congress, he was a member of the california legislature for six years, and also served as an assistant u.s. attorney. welcome, congressman schiff. there is a lot going on in the world and a lot going on with the intelligence committee. i thought i would give you a few minutes before we start to offer your thoughts on the state of the world. [laughter] rep. schiff: ok.
the state of the world is in perfect harmony. [laughter] things are pretty good and there is really nothing much to talk about today. mr. feist: all right. that wraps us up. [laughter] rep. schiff: we were talking backstage about what i might start out with for a few comments. so let me start by telling you about a hearing will have next week on the subject of deep fakes. it is a fairly new technology that allows you to create very realistic audio or video that is almost indistinguishable from the real, but that is completely forged. explainto go back and why this is of great interest and concern to the intelligence committee, i would take you back to 2016, as we were watching the russians in real-time dumping documents that they had hacked from the dnc and the dcc. the dominant concern i had at the time was that they were going to dump forgeries among
the real documents. it would have been very easy to do. to take a real email between two real clinton campaign workers and insert a completely fraudulent paragraph, suggesting that the campaign was engaged in illegality. you can imagine how incendiary that would be, and how nearly impossible it would be to disprove the accuracy of that forged email. after all, these two people existed. you could corroborate other things in the email, and in a highly polarized environment, you can imagine just how disruptive that would be. well come that capability for disruption, and by the way, as far as we could tell, the vast majority of what the russians dumped were authentic, stolen, yes, but authentic documents. there was nothing to prevent the last escalating time, nothing to prevent them from escalating the next time. next time it could be the introduction of a deep fake, a
video of the candidates saying something they never said. you can just see what that would play out like, how you would bee good experts who might willing to make public testimony that after analyzing this end a.i., theytrongest determined the fact that this video of joe biden, or this video of bernie sanders, or whoever, was in fact a forgery. because if you look at how they blink, or if you analyze their speech pattern or how their face moves when they speak, it is inconsistent with how the real person does it. how on other channels, they would say exactly the opposite thing. and the public would be left to doubt. psychologists will tell you a mother, even when you are persuaded that you have seen is not real, the damage is already done to some degree. you will never shake the lingering impression you have.
which is what it was disturbing to see a week or two ago this doctored video of nancy pelosi, the video that was slow down but also made realistic on simply slowing down the speed to make it look like she was her words, or drunk, or impaired in th some way. and why when the president continues to push it out of his twitter account, we are on such treacherous ground. called a cheap fake, very easy and simple to make. real content is just doctored. but if you look back at how impactful than mitt romney , youtape about the 47% was can imagine how i videotape that is more incendiary could be election-altering. this would be the future we are
heading into. when you combine that with the fact that the party have a president was says the things that are real, like the access hollywood tape or fake, and things that are fake likely pelosi tape, he pushes out as real. when he has a presidential lawyer saying truth is not truth, and spokesperson kellyanne conway saying that they are entitled to their own alternate fax. and then there is what sarah huckabee sanders does every day, we are in an environment where the truth is under assault. and in that context, there is what is called the liars evident -- liars dividend. people who are lying on the time can hide behind the fact that the we can tell anymore what is really true. i cannot imagine anything more corrosive to our democracy, than an impairment in which no one can tell what is true anymore, and you simply retreat to your tribe and view everything as
true or false depending on what party you belong to or what group you belong to. so we will be exploring that next week. this is, i think, one of the technologies on the horizon. it is really already here. it is a race between the a.i. to create them and the a.i. to them, but it is something we will certainly be paying attention to and all need to be aware of. mr. feist: below will try to make our way around the world over the course of the next hour and give members a chance to ask -- to ask questions as well. why are you focusing on deep fakes now? for ahop has been around long time, the ability to fake and email or a photograph is not technology is a little different. why now? rep. schiff: it is interesting, when we began our investigation
into what the russians did, we were in an unlikely venue in the intel committee to be looking about the impact of social media. on socialcused really media manipulation by a hostile foreign power. but it revealed to us a lot of the dynamics within social media. how false was travel so much truths, how a hostile power could manipulate public opinion. now we see that the capabilities of the expanding. it would be very easy to introduce a doctor video that could have a very sizable impact. anonymously, at various places around the globe at one time. and whoever introduced it would doesplausible tha liability, for greater deniability than what the mueller report was it which a show about the russian origin of
farmsocial media troll in st. petersburg. they in other bad actors around the world are sophisticated enough to know that they can use any number of other actors that are much more easily concealed for the introduction of videos like this or audio. it is not just the russians, other countries may have an interest in provoking racial violence and can concoct videos that could be so incendiary as to cause rioting. and by the time it is revealed that it is a forgery, the violence is already begun. part of what the russians have tried to do is not just interfere in our elections, but rather a turn americans against other americans. having this powerful tool is an additional weapon that can analyze. mr. feist: is your hope to raise
awareness so that people will question or stress test things that they see, or is there a ,olution, a technical solution or is it both? rep. schiff: it is both. we will have people who will talk about the efforts to detect a.i., but i think you have to be much more skeptical consumers are what we see through social media. even that is such an imperfect answer because it means when things that are out there that are true, it is going to be more difficult to divide or demonstrate or recognize the truth when we see it. i do know the answer to this. i do think a lot of what we're seeing at home and around the globe is a out of two revolutions going on at the same time.
globalization, automation, usually disruptive, that is causing great anxiety and that kind of economic anxiety often is reflected in the form of xenophobic populism. but at the same time, a revolution in communication not unlike, the invention of the printing press, except for we had a hundred or so years to get used to that innovation. we are having to get used to this one overnight. i think it will take us years and years to figure out how do we rely on what we see? do we need to go for more back to trusted sources, that how do you do that in a world in which more people get their news on social media? mr. feist: i recommend cnn as a trusted source. [laughter] you mentioned the russian investigation a couple of questions around that. comey's from james testimony before congress that the f.b.i. had started a counterintelligence
investigation distinguished from the criminal investigation that continued.ler what is the status of the counterintelligence investigation? i.s.u you would be aware of such things as chairman of the house intelligence committee? rep. schiff: we have not been able to get a clear answer yet from the intelligence committee or the f.b.i. as to whether the investigation is still open, a setr it mushroomed into of other counterintelligence investigations, whether it was and it issome point, troubling that we cannot get a straight answer to that question. but we are trying, and we will get an answer to it. i can tell you also that we will be doing a series of hearings. we had one a few weeks ago, but we will be doing a series of hearings on the mueller report. i think probably the first we will do will focus on the counterintelligence
investigation, where we will have experts to help shed light on what is a counterintelligence investigation? what does it mean that this began as a counterintelligence investigation, not as a criminal probe? what is the process to open or close such an investigation, than what does it mean that miller's report -- that the mueller report says that there were ci agents embedded in the team. mean when there are allegations of meeting with a hostile foreign power and denying it, and why that would be of concern to the counterintelligence committee. mr. feist: what do you think we will get from that investigation that we did not get from robert isller's investigation concluded that russia had interfered in our election? we had a 400 page report. what is it that a ci
investigation could do that is different than that? rep. schiff: a great deal. this began as an investigation through the f.b.i. focused on whether u.s. persons were acting as waiting or unwitting agents of the foreign power. may bend of activity criminal or may not be criminal. intrepidy, bob mueller his charter in a very narrow way, and that was to explore the media,'s use of social the hacking operation, and to determine whether there was a conspiracy, whether he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of a criminal conspiracy between the trump campaign and the russians in one or the other. that led to an investigation of obstruction of justice. yourself -- find to theu confine yourself
criminality around the hacking operation and their criminality around the social you operation, it leaves a whole range of conduct that is less than criminal or criminal as do other things out. a clearexample of counterintelligence issue that may not be criminal was in fact discussed, through the prism of both conspiracy and obstruction, and that was moscow's trump tower. moscow trump tower may not have been a crime for the president to seek to make that money doing the campaign, to lie to the country about it. and in fact, the year after that effort ended, in the middle of 2017, when it was discovered that this had gone on much longer than the president had said and that michael cohen had testified, that he did not end before the iowa caucuses, that it continued at least until june of the election year. when the president was first
confronted about this, his comments were quite telling. it is fascinating, because the bles so oftensem but every now and then he will say something so transparent part because he doesn't realize is.damning it he said first of all, is not a crime, and second, i might have lost the election, and why should i miss out on those opportunities, why should i missed out on all that money frame going to lose the election? that could be his attitude to this day. that is, he has never given up hope of that deal he has wanted to make his whole life. that deal, if robert mueller is correct, is one that stood him to make potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps the most lucrative of his life. his view was, why should i lose out on all that money? i would be a dam full to
criticize president putin who holds all the keys to that happening. that is a counterintelligence problem on steroids. or maybe others don't want identified during the course of the investigation but because they did not go into a charging decision on the hacking operation or the social media operation, were completely left report.he but we ought to know if there are steps we need to take to protect the country. mr. feist: you and your colleagues have made it clear that you are not satisfied with the level of cooperation from general.ney but a contempt of congress citation may be coming soon for attorney general barr. i want to ask you what that means. attorney obama's general eric holder was held in contempt of congress for not cooperating with one of their at least that, was the interpretation of the republicans who control congress then. , what does it need to put him
in contempt of congress and how is it any different now. mr. feist:? rep. schiff: what the republicans did with eric holder , first of all, they held him and criminal content. problem with abusing the contempt power or abusing the investigative power of congress. the contempt against eric holder was completely unjustified. mr. feist: i am sure republicans will say the exact same thing about content citation against attorney general barr. rep. schiff: they will say that, but you would have to take amoral equivalent devoid of the facts to believe that that is the case. [laughter] the problem. when you have the abuse of a benghazi investigation, taste any future investigation. when you have used the contempt
citation power, it takes in a future citation of contempt. you have to look below the surface at the actual facts. nevertheless, they held him in criminal contempt and that resulted in a referral to the justice department, which of course, went nowhere. mr. feist: they presume that this one also will go nowhere. rep. schiff: if we pursue a criminal contempt citation, it will be referred to bill barr. and since he does not pay attention to the advice of ethics lawyers, he probably would not recuse himself from that either. there is little confidence that he would enforce his own contempt or even delegate to others that decision. so it may be a civil contempt on the floor that is designed to allow us to bring or action to enforce the subpoenas. i do want to, before we move on to the subject of barr and
about bill barr. during his senate testimony, he opined that the president could have made the mueller investigation away if you wanted because he thought it was unfair. that is his view of the unitary executive. under that deal, a president is truly above the law. because what president would not think an investigation against him or her was unfair? president canhe make it away any of the investigations that were formed out to any of the elements of the department of justice. and because they are stonewalling us on just about everything, it also means we might not know, unless a whistleblower steps forward, whether bill barr is abusing his authority even beyond the fundamental abuse by trying to
exonerate the president on obstruction of justice. so we find ourselves come for the first time, with an attorney general who really is the president defense lawyer and looks person, and who is quite good at it. and has the veneer of respectability to camouflage what he's doing. sophist that rudy giuliani is, he is much more dangerous. mostnk he is the second dangerous man in the country for that reason. when you listen to his interviews and listen to the way he dissembled, when he was asked -- didn'tx news about dom again call for mueller to be fired? dusty said, no,t
he got for him to your mode. us if there was a distinction. . when he was asked, you said the president fully cooperated by the president wouldn't sit down for interview. he says, no, senator whitehouse was ready to cooperate. -- he said, no, the white house was ready to cooperate. when you have in attorney general that lies to congress as he did when charlie crist asked him about whether he was aware of these reservations that had been reported about the mueller team, and he said he was not. that is a very dangerous situation, and as someone who cannot of that department, i at the justice department, i venerate the department. to think it is being led by someone this way, it breaks my heart to read it is profoundly concerning for the country. mr. feist: i want to shift gears a little bit. i think it is appropriate that
today on the 30th anniversary of tianamen square, last night, the secretary of state put out a statement. i thought i would read a bit of what he said. he put out a statement that said, over the decades since tiananmen square, the united states had hoped the chinese integration into a global system would lead to more -- china abuses human rights wherever it serves it interests. today's chinese citizens have been subjected to a new wave of in a cityecially where the government is trying ,o stamp out the islamic faith including detention of more than one million members of a muslim ethnic group. that is a tough statement. that statement could have come from adam schiff. rep. schiff: that is a rare bit
of agreement between the secretary and myself. that, and is actually the very first hearing we had in the intel committee when we became chair best when i became chair was on the rise of authoritarianism around the world. china is a very dangerous and influential part of that trend. it is true that russia has been undermining democracies in europe and elsewhere, but china has been undermining democracy in a different way. in amining democracy powerful, technological way, with the promulgation of these so-called safe cities and the vafe city technology, where cct cameras are ubiquitous, and chinese prisons now are officially recognized by the software on these cameras -- facially recognized by the software on these cameras and it
contains information about their credit score, use of social media, credit history. it is big brother come to life. not only a great threat to the thedom and privacy of chinese people, but also to the degree that china is now exporting this technology to other authoritarian countries, it allows them to perpetrate their autocratic rule. this, under the masquerade of safety and security. i think it is a very dangerous trend, when you compare -- when you consider chinese totalitarian model, when you consider the russian autocratic model, and you consider that autocrats are on the rise around the world, it is threatening to freedom loving people all over the globe and ultimately to us here at home. you would hope, and i am encouraged by the secretary of state, but as you have seen from
10 the time, the secretary speaks for himself and the national security adviser speaks for himself, the u.n. ambassador rice speak for themselves, and the president -- that you and ambassador speaks for himself, and the president weeks for himself. they don't always accord with one another. china maybe the outlier, the president has typically fought, cause with the autocrats and a little in common with fellow democrats around the world. what theoncur with secretary said in that statement. i think this is of grave concern that we need to be paying attention to. certainly huge and consequential and for theurs hundreds of millions of other citizens in china and ultimately consequential for people around world. mr. feist: what levers do think the united states should be using to try to impact russia's human rights record? rep. schiff: it has to be part
of the agenda. apart from the statement on the anniversary of tiananmen square, i would be surprised if any language like that is ever expressed by the secretary in his meetings with the chinese counterparts or by the president for that matter. this does not go unnoticed around the world. when the president calls putin to congratulate him on an election in which his opponent was effectively not allowed to on, and congratulate erdogan ilections in turkey, or el sis in egypt, it sends a message that human rights and democracy are not even on the agenda. i think it has to be a priority in our meetings in our conversations, in her interactions. i think we have to continue to press the issue.
and i also think we need to continue to do a far better job fighting back around the globe as china tries to export this technology. i am always struck when we have hearings in our committee on we have been doing a deep dive on china in the intel i would say we spend more time focused on china than just about everywhere else. apart from the russian investigation, it would be more time than anywhere else,. i continue to be struck by, when you look at what china is doing with it belt and road in terms of its diplomatic effort as well as its development systems, with his investment in r&d technologies, you would think by comparison the we are in for an impoverished country that cannot keep up. but we spend far more than 10 on -- wee, we just spend it spend far more than china on
defense, we just spend it differently. china is a worthy rival, and we need to be thinking about how we are spending or resources. there is no reason china should be outspending us in development assistance or its belt and road initiative. no reason why it should be rights aroundal the world oil we sit on the sidelines. we have to ask ourselves whether we are still fighting the last war. not just chinese influence around the rod should we be countering, but most perniciously, the export of these authoritarian ideas and technologies. onea really have challenged concept that i think we believed in, and maybe it was the failure of hope to triumph over experience, but the idea that
with prosperity came liberalization, that you could not maintain a totalitarian or authoritarian grip and have a robust economy, that the corruption that come from state role would inherently suppress economic growth. china has found a way to grow and strengthen its grip on its people. so we cannot assume that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy anymore. that is a challenge for us, to think about more than laissez-faire in terms of how we deal with it. mr. feist: to that end, the trump administration has effectively banned huawei technology in the united states, the president has said he was a fair trade you with china, at the same time trying to force china to protect americans intellectual property. do you disagree with what the president is doing? rep. schiff: i certainly agree with the strong steps taken
against huawei. i agree with taking strong steps to protect our intellectual property and that many of the rules of the road in terms of trade with china are deeply unfair. i don't agree with much of anything about how the administration is try to accomplish the fair trade situation with china or protecting us from chinese technologies that might threaten -- mr. feist: meaning the president's approach. rep. schiff: what i mean is, if example,at huawei, for the president announced very similar far-reaching sanctions on zte. those lasted one week. out ofre imposed on zte reasons of concern for privacy , over theage
circumvention of sanctions on iran and north korea. they were announced with great fanfare. and then in a tweet, they were making go away. there was never an is the nation for why there were those that -- why there was that complete and utter about-face. there were reports that china had made a decision to invest half a million dollars in trump-branded property in indonesia, maybe that was the reason. there was an effort to get china on board with north korean sanctions, maybe that was the reason, who knows what the reason was. but we know that the president give president xi jinping his top ask at the beginning of the trade negotiations, which was relief for zte. i don't think that these security issues are to be intermingled with the trade issues, because when they are, it makes it look like there's just reduction is a test just protectionism,-
when it is not. i certainly don't think that how they did it with zte, it has caused me in the chinese and others to wonder, will he simply cave on huawei as part of the trade talks? mr. feist: do you think he will? rep. schiff: i hope not. but i have no idea. the conviction, sadly, as we get closer to 2020, and as his destination for something he can call a victory with china becomes all the greater, he will sacrifice anything and everything he needs including our security vis-a-vis huawei or anything else. 2020 will be a deal before even if it means he completely farm, and it will just be the usual marketing ploy about how this is the greatest deal since sliced bread. but there are real trade inequities with china that we
ought to be pressing, but we ought to do it in a logical and rational way. i will give you a perfect illustration, i was in seattle some months ago and talked with amazon about china. is able topetitor freely operate in a united states. amazon is not able to freely operate in china. why we would allow that kind of situation to persist, i don't know. it is a very clear-cut double standard we ought to insist on equality of treatment. we would be on very solid ground. but in a haphazard way that we have been slapping tariffs here there, and the chinese have been responding, it is hard to make heads or tails of what the strategy is, except that it is idiosyncratic, very temperamentally motivated and headed to a very inconclusive results.
mr. feist: i would like to invite our members to join the conversation and to ask a question. please raise your hand, state your name and affiliation, and remember, these are questions, not comment. the best way to know if it is a question is to make sure your sentence answer a question mark. here.l start right >> thank you for making time to be with us here this morning. i am from the department of defense. would you project a little bit on the future of congressional oversight on defense, as things seem to be emerging in the space domain? thank you. rep. schiff: i will give you the good news-the bad news in terms of oversight with our committee. the good news is that notwithstanding our differences over russia, which have been substantial, obviously, we have been it would to do all of our other oversight in a completely
bipartisan way. true for the worst of things. we have been able to pass our annual intel authorization bills, look at our overhead architecture, that human intelligence issues, allocate the budget among the ages these, make sure that we have protections for privacy, and we have been able to get all that done. and pass the bill felt with an almost like what is in the house. for all of our dysfunction, there's only one committee and one house that has been in which a pass and intel authorization every year, and that is ours. you have seen our differences on russia, they are profound. russia, we wrote, the ranking member and, two bipartisan letters to the justice department demanding the full report, unredacted, as well as underlying documents of
counterintelligence and foreign intelligence information. and the justice department has started to provide some of the materials on a rolling basis. each day, -- we have reached a tonight of agreement with the justice department and they have started to begin production. we hope that will continue. i think we have been able to do very effective oversight. obviously, that is another area of tremendous challenge in terms of chinese competition. one of the real fundamental aspects of that challenge is, in terms of our overhead architecture, it is far more cost-effective to disable overhead architecture than it is to build and launch.
there aren't a lot of great and easy answers to that then i'm a ilemma but i think our oversight is going well,. mr. feist: on the front row please. >> thank you. mr. chairman, when i was in college, the threats to the from astates came also nuclear threat. i'm sure you read many of the same books i read about the whole doctrine of nuclear deterrence. when you talk about the cyber realm, do you think cyber activities can be deterred, and if so, what would it doctrine of cyber deterrence look like? rep. schiff: it is a great question. one of the profound distinctions between the nuclear confrontation and the cold war is that we had a pretty good
certainty if it ever came to that of knowing where the nuclear missile came from. cyber-attacks will does have some measure of deniability, which makes them very attractive. it is probably the most asymmetric of all battlefields. i remember doing the obama administration when the north koreans attacked sony. i take a particular interest in that, because i represent hollywood, quite literally, hollywood is in my district. if the north koreans were willing to attack us over a bad movie, then, you know, what else might they to attack us with. and i searched the obama administration to react strongly and establish a deterrent, because it was quite clear that if we didn't, we were going to see a lot more, and not just from the north koreans. i don't think they responded strongly enough to north korea. and remember at the time, the lights were flickering in pyongyang and going out, and
people wondered, is that our response? thecouldn't tell, because lights were always flickering and going out in pyongyang. [laughter] but if you can't tell, it is not much of a deterrence. mr. feist: do you think it was our response? rep. schiff: i don't know the answer to that. concern in thee administration was that if there were a cyber response to north korea and north korea escalated, we stood more to lose than they did, even though their capabilities are much more primitive than ours, we are much more vulnerable given how plugged in we're. are. more arguments the administration was that we do have to respond in a cyber way. when the south koreans are attacked with artillery in the north, they don't often respond with artillery. they react with information. they turn of loudspeakers up and
tell the north koreans the type of regime they live under. how kim is starving the people to feed in nuclear program that is making them less safe. my response was that we should respond with information. i think that would cause came to have to think, do i want to go through this again? if i hacked into some other american company? we did not do anything like that, i think it was a mistake. i think the russians were watching as this went on and realized, this is more or less an area where there is little risk of progression -- risk of repercussion. so what can we do to deter this? numberre any other of ways we can respond on the several. discussed when the russians were hacking our democratic institutions, do you want to hack back?
putin'sant to release finances, where he saves his billions? and there's always the concern of getting a hack for a hack, saw maybe there are better ways to respond to a russian cyber attack. certainly come a sanctions was one of the courses we chose. sanctions are a powerful deterrent for russia. the only thing putin really fears is not a -- is not losing a democratic election, they are not democratic anymore, but he does fears the capacity of people gathering in massive numbers to displace their role.atic and what drives people to the streets potentially is a deterioration in their economic well-being, which is i think one of the hich is, i think, one of the reasons why sanctions get close to home with moscow and i don't think the sanctions we implement hen with g enough and w back off sanks it sends the
exactly the and wrong message when the president for vladimir hone hoax.tells us this is a ing the guy who just burglarized your home, telling the police it was just a hoax and it wasn't the guy in the orange suit. you want ells them if just involved elections, amead. i do think individual agency level people are doing the best they can and we're in the intel community, keeping close eye on
russian plants and attentions as others. president should be asking the i want to f defense, you develop a proportionate response to every form we can anticipate of russian cyber interference. of they continue the same low t mid level social media interference we're seeing now should er stopped what the response be? if they escalate with hacking again, what should our response be? and secretary of state what you others about the sanks ey're going to see if they screw with us again? pening to ink it's hap the degrees it should be. ut... there are lots of ways
youk be deterring action and though we should be looking at a options and looking at hem now and we should be interacting and sending that . ssage asap >> what are you worried about russians doing? awake at you most night? i think, i guess what has opinion concerned is that they don't have to be so overt next time. aced back.e tr one of the things is that no wasn't the term, because it told russians we're good at attribution. and we know what your monthly udget was in your internet research agency. we know private e-mails from you workers.
we know what your chain manned was and subdivisions are involved in these things. ed, jaws when they dropp were dropping in moscow as well. e knew.ow much w russians may feel the risk of too great.s are other impacts than dumping and and through third parties in remote it could be world hugely disruptive and influential. so, i guess i would consider that one of the more profound the russians decided not to be in your face about this. with disruptive in ways
the 're trying to follow court nd so far, the opinions have opinion positive cases so far and the deutsche bank litigation as well as major accounting litigation, it is a risk of the ents that tion's argum and they gal opinion idn't find seriously questions raised by trump lawyers so i, you know, i think trump lawyers they ood enough to know and they gal argument can push this, dale thail delay
this as long as possible and d urts seem aware of this an moving to resolve questions which i think is positive. >> yes, sir. microphone? thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm delighted in the skills is you have, my question this. what are the trump supporter responses to the russian election interference? it's happened on obama's watch idn't do enough to stop it. at the en reported th heads of the intelligence summer, 2016 came up with the gang of eight and blic with what to the trumpvering campaign. cconnell said we'll call
that? a few things. i said this at the time as well as afterward. i don't think the obama administration was aggressive in realtime as they should have been and in fact, in the summer 2016 sthor feinstein and i were concerned about what we're eeing and urged intelligence community administration to make public allegations on what i thought it more
congressional outreach to the states to put them on notice to tention to the systems, their voting e can not get bipartisan support to do it except in a way. milk toast was so, you know, o senatorps were left t that ein and myself when is called for strong statements ut of congress and strongest point response of the
administration. the trumpat justifies ampaign's eagerness to get russia out. like to weigh the responsibility of the obama administration but they were dhrilled to get russian help an it.e no bones about he'd love to get that kind of help. ma'am. >> thank you very much. u about the k yo intelligence on iranian activities. cerned are you about these purported threats? do you trust the administration and intelligence community to
portray this information, what ow it r believe on h started? and what is your advice to the ing a stration about avoid war with iran? ? >> thank you. i think it's accurate and that there is a increased risk of let level. s t i don't view this a and mentally a question intelligenceassure is sound and that is the responsibility. seems to me a
s not content with leading our and we'rehe agreement rying to get the agreement and i don't understand that. is that supposed to lead? people didn't think we should having n the agreement entered into it. i keep on asking some of our rs and partne administration figures and d hers, where is this suppose to leave? how is this supposed to make us ?ore secure i can never get an answer to